Courts should toss judge's lawsuit over health, pension benefits

Michael T. Dempsey/The Jersey JournalSuperior Court Judge Paul DePascale is shown in this 2009 file photo. DePascale is suing the state, claiming the recently-passed pension and health care reforms are unconstitutional and should not apply to judges.

Judges can’t dispense real justice, true justice, good justice with a gun to their head. Or a hand on their wallets. That’s why New Jersey protects the paychecks of state Supreme Court and Superior Court judges.

To shield them from political retribution, the state constitution says those judges’ pay "shall not be diminished during the term of appointment." It’s sound thinking. In a democracy, there must exist a firewall between the political branches of government and the judiciary.

Judges shouldn’t have to worry: Rule this way, stay whole; rule that way, take a pay cut. (Or get fired.) Who wouldn’t agree with that? But now, the pressing legal question of the day: What constitutes a pay cut?

A lawsuit by Hudson County Superior Court Judge Paul DePascale says the recently signed pension and health benefits reform is, in fact, a pay cut, because DePascale, and other judges, will have to kick in more for their benefits. To DePascale, less take-home pay equals a pay cut.

That might be a solid legal view, but it ignores fiscal reality. The reforms were passed because the state was on the edge of financial disaster. They weren’t intended to punish judges.

But that argument is too narrow and too simplistic, DePascale’s supporters say. They insist the state constitution provides not just an uncrackable vault for judges’ pay, but it dresses them in full-body Kevlar to protect them against almost any influence (fiscal, political or whatever) by the Legislature.

The problem with that argument is that judges have gladly accepted raises and benefit upgrades (during their terms) without a peep about separation of powers.

To DePascale, this is a straightforward constitutional issue: The judicial branch must remain independent, because that ensures equal justice for every citizen, it keeps good judges on the bench and it encourages great legal minds to seek positions on the bench. In other words, judges to lawmakers: Can’t touch this (until my term is up)!

It’s easy to understand why the lawsuit infuriates taxpayers, who see DePascale as an ingrate. Judges earn between $165,000 for Superior Court trial judges to $192,795 for Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, and they historically have paid less for their benefits, which are loftier than most other workers, public or private sector.